Kodachrome to Ektar 100

[d_f11]

'Havn't shot print film for 2 decades now, but want to give this new Ektar a try. I'm used to shooting Kodachrome at

ISO 100, 100+1 on super bright sunny days, but now it's print film, so should I follow the same calibrations

accordingly?

[User_502260]

<p>Why would you shoot Kodachrome at 100? Is your meter off?</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Kodachrome and Ektar don't like to be underexposed. K64 doesn't like overexposure either. Both are demanding from an exposure point of view if you want the optimum image, although Ektar is pretty tolerant of overexposure. If my K64 exposures don't come out correctly at ISO 64, then I get the camera serviced.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>Kodachrome has a wider range than a lot of people give it a credit for. There is a fine range of underexposure where it can be really nicely saturated with good color depth, and then where it gets to be difficult to scan. Properly exposed, it scans relatively easy, but the colors can be a little different. Depends on the situation.</p>

[andrea_lee3]

<p>Hey guys, can you give some more information on Ektar, if you've used it? I mean subjective impressions, not the stuff from the box or the website.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I'm a bit impressed by Ektar's capacity for overexposure. I think my next roll I'll just set ASA to 80 and not worry about bracketing. The stuff is amazing scanned.</p>

[silverscape]

<p>Andrea, I've shot several rolls of Ektar 100 (the 35mm size, not the new 120 rolls). My impression is that it's a great film for landscapes. It has beautiful colors, and just has a different look to it, which I've never seen with other films. It has a little bit of a cold tone to it, but very nice colors. It's kind of hard to describe until you see it. It's just <em>different</em>. It seems to really like blue, so any blue will really pop out...clear blue sky, scenes on a lake or with the ocean, etc. It's also great for achitectural photos. If you're taking pictures of a building, anything red constrasting against a clear blue sky will look incredible. In fact, a few people have said that the colors might be a little too strong. But I like it.</p>

<p>The only catch is that Ektar seems to be extremely unforgiving with exposure. Especially underexposure. If you underexpose it, the colors will get really weird and everthing will have kind of a bluish tint. All the other films I've used were a lot more tolerant, and in fact I could usually just use the "Sunny 16 Rule" and get close enough to get decent pictures. But I can't do that with Ektar. You pretty much <em>have</em> to use a light meter. I got very disappointing results with my first couple of rolls, because I underexposed it. It took a little bit of practice. But if you get the exposure right, it will take very nice pictures with awesome colors. And it's incredibly sharp. If you're taking pictures outdoors and you want a little bit of extra "punch" then Ektar is great. But like I said, it does have a different look to it. And be sure you give it plenty of light. (Take landscape photos in the morning or late afternoon though, not in the middle of the day). It might not hurt to shoot it as an 80 ISO film. Obviously, you want to try to get the exposure right. But it seems to be more tolerant of overexposure than underexposure. It won't handle underexposure well at all.</p>

<p><strong>PROS:</strong> <br />- Very sharp, and you can't see any grain.<br>

<br />- Beautiful colors. In the right lighting, colors will pop out and look awesome. It's great for landscape and architectural photos, especially if you want a little bit of extra "punch."<br>

<br />- Ektar just has a very unique look to it. It's hard to explain until you see it. It just looks "different." This is a benefit because it gives you another option to have a different look for your pictures.<br>

<br />- It's available in 120 size now!</p>

<p><strong>CONS:</strong><br />- Very unforgiving with exposure, especially underexposure. If you underexpose it, the colors get really weird. And depending how severely it's underexposed, everything can have kind of a bluish tint. I think it would be really difficult to use the "Sunny 16 Rule" with this film.<br>

<br />- Has a little bit of a cold tone. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but just something to think about.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I think the tendency to "cold" from Ektar 100 is the same thing that happens with Ektachroms E100G outdoors. Both are really very accurate films. Shadows outside really do have a very cold color temperature, they are lit only by blue sky, not by the white sun. Our eyes and brain automatically adjust for that (truly automatic white balance), film doesn't. So it sees the blue light.</p>

 

[patrick_mont]

<p>I would just leave your meter set for 100 and go out and have a good time :)</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Here you go: This is ektar bracketed -2, 0, +2 and scanned with a Coolscan 9000.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eddy_d]

<p>Amazing colors either over/under/correct exposure and very saturated. I have 2 rolls in my fridge and now seeing this I cannot wait to use it. I am waiting to get my ektar 120 and using it in my holga.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Probably my favorite color negative today.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>I've shot it anywhere from 64-100 and it all looks great. TTL metering or hand meter. I wasn't ever too careful with it. Since it's a slower film, and I'm usually shooting it in good light, I have a tendency to put it at 64 or 80, take an incident reading, and not worry about exposure. Color negative usually does fine with at least up to +1 stops of overexposure, and at 64 or 80, I have an extra 1/3-2/3rds of a stop of buffer for the shadows. </p>

<p>Moral of the story: a stop of overexposure never hurt C41 film. In a lot of cases, it helps. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Agree, this is not digital. You should expose for the shadows (meter the shadows divide the shutterspeed by 8 or 16) and shoot without worrying about the highlights.</p>

[herbmartin2]

<p>So far I've shot it at its rated speed and have had good results.Subjectively I think this film works best in low contrast scenes where it makes colours pop in a natural way. Ektar is a joy to scan- I use an Epson V700. Here are a couple of examples<br>

http://i.pbase.com/g1/90/16790/2/111775348.w3cnfEGT.jpg<br>

http://i.pbase.com/g1/90/16790/2/111775338.3QWZUGQQ.jpg</p>

 

[mauro_franic]

<p>Herb, I couldn't see access your links. Can you add 100% crops to the thread?</p>

[herbmartin2]

<p><img src="http://i.pbase.com/g1/90/16790/3/111775338.3QWZUGQQ.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="248" /> <img src="http://i.pbase.com/g1/90/16790/3/112310508.JuLXc5cw.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="370" /><br>

Thumbnail of image with 100% crop. Scanned with Epson V700 at 4800 dpi with epson scan<br>

More examples here at<br>

http://www.pbase.com/pgonline/ektar_100</p>

[zoltan_arva_toth]

<p>Here is a shot taken on Kodak Ektar 100:</p><div></div>

[zoltan_arva_toth]

<p>A 100% crop from a 3600ppi scan shows sharp details with no grain:</p><div></div>